Kef Blade 1 meta disappointed

[thewas]

And that's how a room can destroy things, when I listened the Blade 1 midbass was just ok, nothing that could kick you in the chest.

Most people and showrooms unfortunately place the loudspeakers in the "forbidden" region regarding the front wall which kills the mid- and kickbass:

Source: https://www.genelec.com/monitor-placement

 

[restorer-john]

Most people and showrooms unfortunately place the loudspeakers in the "forbidden" region regarding the front wall which kills the mid- and kickbass

It doesn't matter what manufacturers and designers have to say about placement- it all comes down to "audiophiles" mistaken ideas that a speaker needs to be out in the room, away from the walls in order to "breathe"...

 

[Sokel]

It doesn't matter what manufacturers and designers have to say about placement- it all comes down to "audiophiles" mistaken ideas that a speaker needs to be out in the room, away from wall in order to "breathe"...

Seasoned, old studio people also advice about the in-between speaker distance to get kick right.
At 100-200Hz where the kick is, it's not only decent SPL that is required as most speakers are still pretty omni there and can cancel themselves depending the placement, room, etc.
That's why a good sanity measurement must also include stereo bass, etc.

 

[restorer-john]

That's why a good sanity measurement must also include stereo bass

Not at ASR. One speaker only need apply.

 

[terryforsythe]

How much in total are the four 9" on the Blade One?

It depends on how wide the surrounds are, and thus what is the actual effective cone area, but probably between 17" and 18".

 

[Hear Here]

kef must be blithering idiots ending up with side firing woofers what a waste of years and years of actual research ....

On the contrary. Their years of research has led them to mount the bass drivers on the sides of the enclosure.

Low frequency sound is very difficult for the human ear to precisely locate its position, so (like subwoofers) the location of bass drivers is largely irrelevant. KEF have long used energy-cancelling methods to maximise bass performance, thus their back-to-back placement within the Blade enclosure and minimising cabinet vibrations.

They've been doing this for decades on their top-of-the-range speakers. I used to own their Reference 107 speakers that had their 2 10" bass drivers completely inside the cabinet, but again using force cancelling techniques to maximise performance. In 1986, Stereophile said of this speaker "Overall, I consider the KEF 107s to be an engineering marvel and, by a clear margin, the best full-range conventional speaker money can buy." KEF didn't get it wrong then and they don't get it wrong now!

 

[Sokel]

It depends on how wide the surround are, and thus what the actual effective cone area, but probably between 17" and 18".

To be correct one must include volume displacement too, so x-max matters as well.
But yes, the numbers are around there.

I'm personally more interest at the Voice Coil size before looking anything else, it's a solid hint for mid-bass performance.
A 3" one is a good start.

 

[thewas]

It doesn't matter what manufacturers and designers have to say about placement- it all comes down to "audiophiles" mistaken ideas that a speaker needs to be out in the room, away from the walls in order to "breathe"...

Exactly, always the same ancient myths coming from times when no (P)EQ or measurements were available to the majority.

 

[Sokel]

On the contrary. Their years of research has led them to mount the bass drivers on the sides of the enclosure.

Low frequency sound is very difficult for the human ear to precisely locate its position, so (like subwoofers) the location of bass drivers is largely irrelevant. KEF have long used energy-cancelling methods to maximise bass performance, thus their back-to-back placement within the Blade enclosure and minimising cabinet vibrations.

They've been doing this for decades on their top-of-the-range speakers. I used to own their Reference 107 speakers that had their 2 10" bass drivers completely inside the cabinet, but again using force cancelling techniques to maximise performance. In 1986, Stereophile said of this speaker "Overall, I consider the KEF 107s to be an engineering marvel and, by a clear margin, the best full-range conventional speaker money can buy." KEF didn't get it wrong then and they don't get it wrong now!

View attachment 431442

Nope, that's old news.
Recent studies shows otherwise:

https://assets.swoogo.com/uploads/4646601-673c03ab61c93.pdf

Also have a look at this thread, specially at the last pages:

Bass and subwoofers

This is the second in a series of follow-up posts to https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-of-lokki-bech-toole-et-al.27540/#post-950580, this time focussing on bass perception with a brief digression on subwoofers, since there's relevance to (reproduction of) concert hall acoustics. I’ve...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Hear Here]

Damn they sound soo bad I might replace them with some esoteric thief manufacturers with 0 objective data on their speakers with some story telling novel in the description

And some may think that crap speakers will sound great when DSP is applied! Whatever next?

 

[terryforsythe]

To be correct one must include volume displacement too, so x-max matters as well.

Correct.

 

[Hear Here]

Nope, that's old news.
Recent studies shows otherwise:

https://assets.swoogo.com/uploads/4646601-673c03ab61c93.pdf

Also have a look at this thread, specially at the last pages:

Bass and subwoofers

This is the second in a series of follow-up posts to https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-of-lokki-bech-toole-et-al.27540/#post-950580, this time focussing on bass perception with a brief digression on subwoofers, since there's relevance to (reproduction of) concert hall acoustics. I’ve...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I take less notice of theoretical papers than I do of the music itself.

I prefer to buy genuinely full-range speakers with no need for subs. They deliver the best results in my opinion and avoid the complexity of multi-speaker systems that AV guys have to contend with.

 

[Sokel]

I take less notice of theoretical papers than I do of the music itself.

I prefer to buy genuinely full-range speakers with no need for subs. They deliver the best results in my opinion and avoid the complexity of multi-speaker systems that AV guys have to contend with.

That's pretty much what the paper says.
My objection to your post is about the difficulty of the ear to localize low. Paper says that it can with the right conditions, and very much low so.

 

[SigbergAudio]

Nope, that's old news.
Recent studies shows otherwise:

https://assets.swoogo.com/uploads/4646601-673c03ab61c93.pdf

Also have a look at this thread, specially at the last pages:

Bass and subwoofers

This is the second in a series of follow-up posts to https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-of-lokki-bech-toole-et-al.27540/#post-950580, this time focussing on bass perception with a brief digression on subwoofers, since there's relevance to (reproduction of) concert hall acoustics. I’ve...

www.audiosciencereview.com

We are nowhere near having enough data to conclude on this matter like you are implying here.

 

[Sokel]

We are nowhere near having enough data to conclude on this matter like you are implying here.

Maybe not enough but it's on the other side to prove otherwise now.
With the data we DO have we don't imply anymore.

 

[SigbergAudio]

That's pretty much what the paper says.
My objection to your post is about the difficulty of the ear to localize low. Paper says that it can with the right conditions, and very much low so.

It's been a little while since I read this, but to my memory there were no tests concerning the direction of drivers on speakers or subwoofers?

 

[Sokel]

It's been a little while since I read this, but to my memory there were no tests concerning the direction of drivers on speakers or subwoofers?

There was, you need to read it again.

 

[SigbergAudio]

Maybe not enough but it's on the other side to prove otherwise now.
With the data we DO have we don't imply anymore.

No, you know very well that is not how it works. If you make an unsubstantiated claim, your claim is not a fact until someone proves you wrong. It only becomes a fact when you or someone else proves it right.

 

[SigbergAudio]

There was, you need to read it again.

Would you like to save me a few minutes by pointing me to the correct section (as I cannot find it)? Thank you in advance.

 

[Sokel]

No, you know very well that is not how it works. If you make an unsubstantiated claim, your claim is not a fact until someone proves you wrong. It only becomes a fact when you or someone else proves it right.

Isn't that what experiments like on that paper do? Prove things?
Unless you imply that Lund is incapable of such.